the brown contemporary
Brown’s Conscience • Amid changing admissions policies and budget priorities, we have forgotten the values that should inform these decisions. We must reconcile the Simmons administration with the Magaziner Era, or risk losing our identity.
bc editor-in-chief Reed Danger Frye editors Jessica Wang Alicia Ambers contributors Ben Struhl ‘09 Jason Becker ‘09 Arthur Matuszewski Chaney Harrison Anthony Badami Tyler Rosenbaum cover art & illustrations Farah Shaer web design Jovian Yu
Thanks for reading the Contemporary, Brown. Measuring your essays in pounds? Sleeping in a rolled up UTRA poster in the Scili stacks? I sympathize of course. I also ask you to poke your head out and give the world a twice-over. Though you’ll never get around to leaving the Hill, you’d be surprised how the valley can still affect you. Enjoy, reed
Direct comments, questions, and letters to the editor to: browncontemporary@gmail.com The Brown Contemporary is a student production. The content herein represents the views of the individual contributors, for which Brown University is not responsible.
2
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
CONTENTS 4
AFGHANISTAN: A VIGNETTE AND TWO PROPOSALS anthony badami
6
A CROSS OF KNOWLEDGE: MAYOR CICILLINE’S POPULISM reed frye
9
HOW DID WE GET HERE? WHERE ARE WE GOING FROM HERE? arthur matuszewski
10
ENVISIONING VALUES: A DISCUSSION ABOUT DECISION-MAKING AT BROWN UNIVERSITY arthur matuszewski, chaney harrison, and jason becker
11
AFFORDING FREE SPEECH jessica wang
16
NORTH KOREA: CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE anthony badami
18
A PRESCRIPTION FOR REAL CHANGE alicia ambers
21
THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH tyler rosenbaum
23
ENDNOTES
Sep/Oct 2009 • volume III, issue 1
W
by anthony badami
ith such a muddy conflict in Afghanistan, finding tractable ground is nearing the impossible. Which is why, with your permission, I would like to offer two clear-cut approaches to lessen the mire of this conflict and increase our military and economic traction. Before doing so, I believe a quick thumbnail sketch of the current debacle in Afghanistan is appropriate. The Pakistan Army will soon begin a campaign into South Waziristan,
ddin Haggani. This timorous refrain does not bode well for the coalition forces targeted by these goons, nor does it speak too highly of NATO’s ability—or inability, rather—to garner support from its supposed Pakistani allies. Bush’s “fight ’em there so we don’t have to fight them here” logic was shattered recently when agents in New York and Denver arrested Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan national who plotted to bomb Grand Central
gitimacy of Karzai’s leadership. Moreover, bonehead Ban Ki-Moon’s recent decision to oust Galbraith, an American diplomat who made the mistake of requesting an investigation into this swindle, reveals the true cowardice and hypocrisy of the United Nations. So, where do we go from here? Obama outlined in his latest metric (leaked to Foreign Policy) that success in Afghanistan means dismantling Al-Qaeda entirely. General McChrys-
a Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) stronghold. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s allegiances with the warlords of the region (and its desire to find allies in their fight for Kashmir) will inhibit any decisive action against the leading militant commanders, namely Maulvi Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, and Jalalu-
Terminal. Two others of Afghan descent were taken into custody as well. This episode is itself unnerving; but, when coupled with the current internal political crisis in Afghanistan, it creates a harrowing feeling. The likely fraudulence of recent Afghanistan elections casts necessary doubt on the le-
tal’s leaked evaluation of the state of affairs in Afghanistan, revealed late September in the Washington Post, draws the unfortunate conclusion that troop levels may soon become irrelevant. He means, then, that a reorientation of our strategy in Afghanistan must happen immediately.
4
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
Thus I propose two changes to usual, but one should not doubt in- of Afghanistan? Instead, we are quite the course of our military and eco- novation in such dire circumstances. literally handing over to the Taliban nomic efforts in Afghanistan. Second, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has a ready source of revenue. The opium First, go local. Second, go opium. no money-making mechanism in place. could be used positively for important To the first: we must not forget the In Iraq, there is near certainty that it will painkillers and pharmaceuticals. This ethnic landscape of Afghanistan. The be a rich country in some decades due to is not an original idea. High-level talks identity of the population is rooted in its massive oil resources. Afghanistan, in Afghan-U.S. leadership have been Wolaswalei, meaning that the coun- on the other hand, used to be primarily discussing this proposal for some time, try has traditionally been divvied up vineyard country. But years of politi- and journalists both here and abroad by district, each typically housing a cal turmoil and violent civil war have have repeatedly encouraged implemensingle tribal group. The U.S. military torn this native crop apart. It has left tation. It’s high time (no pun intended) should reorient its forces and assis- in its place the only crop that can flour- for the U.S. to embrace this drug, so tance around these delineations. that Afghans can begin to creFurthermore, the Taliban ate infrastructure and weaken I propose two changes to the often operate in rural parts the Taliban warlords occupying of Afghanistan in remote villarge swaths of their countryside. course of our military and ecolages. Troops would do well to Both proposals I have set stop in these areas every once forth require immediate execunomic efforts in Afghanistan. in a while. Instead of trying to tion if the U.S. is to have any bolster a failing and increashope of exiting this potential First, go local. Second, go opium. quagmire. Afghanistan has not ingly illegitimate national government, the U.S. should focus yet become synonymous with its political rebuilding efforts locally. ish in such a hostile climate – opium. Vietnam, but it’s becoming dangerThe development plans on the But the U.S., because of its nonsen- ously close. The fight that began a few ground, manifested in the Provin- sical phobia towards any kind of legally months after 9/11 is still worth fighting cial Reconstruction Teams, could be sanctioned drug activity, has refused for – I only hope, for the sake of our inconverted into district-based teams, to give Afghans the rights to sell this nocent Afghan comrades and our brave as advocated by Thomas Johnson of opium (we give it to the Turks). Why U.S. troops, that we can escape from The Atlantic. This approach is un- not give the contract to the good people this muck sooner rather than later.bc
bc
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
5
A Cross of Knowledge: Mayor Cicilline’s Populism by reed frye
talented kinsmen under threat of town also much like in small town America, The Call a generation of young Rhode Island he fin-de-siecle United States extinction by train route cancellation. This is an allegory. To avoid confu- businessmen have sought friendlier saw the early birth of the urban middle class and the early death of the sion, the chump rural Americans will shores. For the past two decades, RI rural island community. Uneducated henceforth be referred to as Rhode Is- businesses have found cheaper labor “lawyers” excluded from the Knights landers. Rhode Island, much like 19th abroad and in the low-minimum-wage of Labor as conmen entered the city to century rural America, is not well. In central and southern US, constituting become respected citizens, regulated a 2008 Forbes study, we came in dead between 1995 and 2000 a net loss of by hundreds of new bar 4,200 25-to-39-year-old associations. Laborers The state is experiencing near uniform job college graduates seeking job opportunities and everywhere were leapfrogging up the corporate lad- loss across its business sectors, and not just lower taxes elsewhere. No sector has expeder into nascent mid-level management. This was due to recession: much like in small town rienced this loss of employers more dramatijust the Horatio-Algerloving, self-reliant attitude America, a generation of Rhode Island busi- cally than Rhode Island’s manufacturers, formerly rural America had lauded a vital producer of jewfor decades – and they nessmen have sought friendlier shores. elry and textiles, curwere being ruined by it. An entire generation of promising ru- last (50th place) for business friendli- rently producing 50% less GSP (gross ral youth vanished into the city. Those ness. The state is experiencing near state product) per worker than Maswho returned squeezed cheap labor uniform job loss across its business sachusetts’s. Particularly during the and political favors out of their less- sectors, and not just due to recession: Bush era, manufacturing firms that
T
6
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
remained in-state exhibited the vexing dence’s current mid-recession 13.6% – status Rhode Island spectacularly fails to achieve. This most of all is a lesson combination of rising GSP and produc- in some places by a factor of two. we can take from tivity from new technology, and Even Karl Marx predicated the rise of the proletariat our allegorical 19th century rudeclining wages and employment upon a robust capitalist environment, a status Rhode Is- ral town: we call the ones that esfor its obsolesctranged employing workers. land spectacularly fails to achieve. ers and railroad This is not to I don’t mean to offend my class- commerce “ghost towns”. say that manufacturing is the only sector lagging in Providence. Businesses mates’ liberal sensibility with this ansimply do not want to employ people in ti-welfare rhetoric: I could not agree The Response such a violently redistributive tax en- more that a state with excessive lowJust as the American island commuvironment. Why, even in 2000, when income rents, roughly 6000 homeless, nity recognized the Puritan work ethic Providence benefited from having con- and a hectic foreclosure and mortgage driving its decline, Mayor Cicilline has structed Providence Place and Water- sale crisis needs to reinvest in its com- been quick to understand the power Fire and renovated Westminster street, munity. However, even Karl Marx of the same educational institutions unemployment to the south and west predicated the rise of the proletariat that give wings to fleeing Providence of downtown was higher than Provi- upon a robust capitalist environment, a graduates. He seeks to replace manu-
From left to right, top to bottom: mortgagee sales in Federal Hill, Downtown, West End, Upper South Providence, and Lower South Providence since July 1st
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
7
facturing losses by developing a new “knowledge economy” - by supporting highly educated jobs in our still-growing health and education sector and a better education system to satisfy those new jobs. Unfortunately, a cursory glance at Cicilline’s recent agenda reveals what are largely direct attacks on the same health and education industries he wants to bolster. What’s more is that these contradictory attacks are not new to American history. Many of the same island communities, and indeed many of the aforementioned ghost towns, contradicted their own bootstrap mentality in supporting the first and only American Populist party. American Populism was for the most part characterized by a resurgence of
imagine is) majoritarianism combined in this alumnus’s open anti-Brown, anti-elitist agenda. His nonprofit property tax at 25% of the regular property tax will specifically cripple our more successful hospitals, and will target Brown more than other colleges, as it applies only to buildings worth more than $20 million. His support for the $150/semester student tax on 25,000 full-time students from out-of-state affects a disproportionate 8,000 Brown students. It would seem the Renaissance city does not proudly host a growing health and education sector: it tolerates them. It appears Cicilline will look up the arguments later. In contradicting Cicilline’s attitude, I would skip the usual claims that Brown
health industry will hardly stomach property taxes just because the IPIC is giddy about “incentivizing innovation” (I’m still not really sure what that means in reality). Not only is this unproductive economically for all parties involved, it is just bad politics. The only hope for Providence is to avoid the errors of American Populism by politically reconciling the higher-income health and education sector with the justly frightened populace. Rather than a short-term poor-versus-rich dialogue, we need to facilitate longterm projects like the landmark Alpert Medical Center in the Jewelry district (2011), both a knowledge stimulus to the buildings that will replace the former I-95 structure and a highly visual,
The people who would dance on Ruth Simmons’s grave before rejecting Cicilline’s student tax are the same people who give the term “knowledge economy” the supercilious connotation it bears. religious and moral legislation, socialist tendencies, fierce nationalism, and of course a loyalty to the unpredictable common opinion. William Jennings Bryan, a serious Populist contender for the 1896 presidency, famously immortalized this last precept as a congressman in declaring, “The people of Nebraska are for free silver, so I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later.” Four years after, the movement was dead, rural America had reached unprecedented political irrelevance, and free-silver Bryan had been crucified on his proverbial “cross of gold.” The decline of Populist constituents results partially from antagonizing the very industries that (supposedly) embodied their American individualist values and hopes for progress. This should sound familiar, because it is essentially the sentiment emanating from Providence City Hall, particularly from Mayor Cicilline. The mayor himself is fundamentally populist. We see the legal moralizing in his support for the prostitution ban, the socialist tendencies in Providence’s cadaverous business environment, and most of all, the nationalism and (what I can only
8
does pay local taxes indirectly, not least by employing its own police force and emergency medical service. I would instead appeal to Mayor Cicilline’s own political sensibility. Certainly Mayor Cicilline’s verbal contributions to the Providence Interim Comprehensive Plan and the Innovation Providence Implementation Council (IPIC) indicate support for higher local education, “smart” jobs, and increased collegiatemunicipal relations. They do not however mitigate his self-righteousness in taxing away the only paths to the knowledge economy still open to his city. Certainly Providence suffers from a property tax revenue gap, as some estimate as much as 25% of city land is tax exempt, but alienating our only promising source of future jobs is politically the worst way of recouping it. Mayor Cicilline is not building a citywide platform, he is pitting his constituents against each other, and both sides will lose. The people who would dance on Ruth Simmons’s grave before rejecting his student tax are the same people who give the term “knowledge economy” the supercilious connotation it currently bears. Conversely, the
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
political affirmation of the power the knowledge economy has to change the lives of everyday people too. Instead of mutually assured destruction by tax, we must capitalize visibly upon IPIC’s promises to tether the education system to the knowledge economy’s specific employers, so Providence citizens can express with political support their optimism that the knowledge economy actually has a place for them. I’d offer an alternative, but realistically there is none. The manufacturing jobs are not coming back, and the lower-paid service sector can absorb only so much runoff. In contradicting his alleged support for the knowledge economy, Mayor Cicilline is turning potential constituents into an opponent interest group that composes 18% of the Providence economy. Even were he to weather the ensuing political carnage, graduate students at Brown’s own Taubman Center for Public Policy would record his history not as one who fought valiantly for the common man, but as the harbinger of the same political and economic irrelevance in Providence America historically promises to sources of blind populist sentiment.
bc
How did we get here? Where are we going from here? by arthur matuszewski On the whole, undergraduates tend to overstate the importance of our particular moment in history. Newly baptized in the waters of our most revered institution, we see every administrative slight as a nascent apocalypse of all that drew us here that we know and love. For first-years, the advising situation tolls the bells of Armageddon – every freshman representative of the past few decades has campaigned on the promise of fixing this beast, and every future representative will continue to do g to so. It mayy warm some heartstrings n ote that Elliot Maxwell and Ira Maganote zziner, iner, venerated architects of the New w C Curriculum, urriculum, grumbled abo about out this this his very hi vveeryy ssame ame promise. Acknowledging Acknowleedg dgin ing advisad dvi viissiing ng as central to intellectual intellecctu tua all freedom, fre reed dom om,, tthey th ey warned of professors profe feess ssors ors who or w o would wh w ul wo uld d sstruggle truggle to balance their theiir research reese re sea se ear arch h with wit ith ith tthe he proper counsel of students stu uden ud nttss the the New New w Curriculum C urriculum would require. requiirreee. While Wh W hil ile conconn ccerns erns like these may seem m little litt litt li ttle ttle le more more tthan han refrain, each concern is the th he sustesust sus sten ance of a student who demands dem mand ands ds more mo orre nance from his/her time here heeree by by leaving l avin le ing it in it a better place than tha an it began. began. an n. Sadly individual indiivi vidu idual dual students, stu t deent n s, s within wit ith hin the hi the th calculus off the the university, th univver e si sity ty,, are are a transiar transi tra sitive force. forcee. We’re Wee’r ’ree here heere for h for four fou our years, our yyeea arrss,, and within with th hin four four our more, mo m ore re,, a new neew set set of se of eaea a-g ge er eyes, eeyyes yes, es, minds es mind mi mind nds and nds and vigorous an vigo vi goro rou bodies rous bod odie die ies ies ger w wi lll charge cha harg rgee the rg t e hill th hill to to remake rema re make ke Brown B wn as as will the wellspring th weelllspri ring off innovation inno novation n and and enterenterrprisee itt has has historically his histo torica all llyy been. been be en. However, un navoid dable remains that unavoidable ‘historically been’’ part – it is as much a char arge ge of o students to to preserve prres eser e ve the th the hischarge tory to r a ry is to o make mak makee that thatt preservation pre p rese s rvat atio atio ion on ass it is dist di stin st inct in ctly lyy ours. our our u s. Deciding Dec D ecidin ng the the direction directi di tion distinctly of our o university uni uni nivve versit vers ity – of any university univeers rsit ityy – is a process perpetually peerpetua allyy more important than the product. product ct. While Whi hile l the product is
subject to ability and resources, it is the process that we students can best attend to in the creation of ourselves and our environment-at-large. In a sense, undergraduate study requires from us a certain delusional belief in the importance of our time here. It seems to require a similarly deluded belief in the nature of change for us to make any. True revolutionary change, of the kind we envision in Maxwells and Magaziners to be, is never an expected process –it occurs under extraordinary circumstances. Cutting the philosophytalk,, Brown’s endowment has taken a roughly $800 million-dolla ar hit. Even Even million-dollar as we trim our organizational organizatiional strucsttructtures, tu urrees, s, w we move forward with wit ith the Plan Pla an fo or A cad adem adem emic Enrichment, continuing continu uing for Academic tth he rapid rapi ra rapi pid capital c pital hustle wee embarked ca embark rkeed the on yea yyears ears rs ago. a the Our workers are in the sstreets, st tre reets reet ets, et s, and and d our our buildings are rising rissing al a long with with ith h our our tuitions. Our Our faculty facu ultty along and administrators an administrators are in adm ncreasin ngly gl increasingly n ew, w, and and our research is booming. bo ooming. As As new, sstudents, st uden ud e ts, we are coming outt of an SATSA ATgr g rrin iin nd cu ult ltur ltur uree hurtling us through th hrough our our grind culture fformative for fo orrm ma ivve year mat arrs with w th the ferocity of wi of years yyoung yo ung lemurs un lemu murs rs clutching clu utchi hing n ourr way out ut of of a pre p pr ree-prrofe offession o nal womb. wom omb. Financial Fin inancial aid, aid d, pre-professional for tth he fi firrst rst time time me in in the the history th histtory of edued duthe ca ation, is a blle to o admit adm dmit miitt students stud dents withwiithth h cation, able o ut concern conc co ncer nc e n for fo or their th hei eir ability ab biillit i y to pay. Our Ou ur out pr p res res esid id iden den entt is is black, bl bla lack k, and and our our mayor ou ma m ayo y r aims aiims president tto o tax us. us. Our Our faculty fac acu cul ulty ty is is starting sttar arting g to to look look like li k the new us, s, and an nd d our our ur students sttu stu ude dent ent ntss are arre no a no long lo nger er apathetic apath a het etic icc or or detached deetta ached – clocking clo lock kin ng longer good service seervicee work wor ork across acrro oss oss ss the the globe glo lobe b and and stri st r vi ri ving g ffor or tthe he common com mmon mon good. mo good. go d If If there th her ere striving is a time tim ime for path-forging, path pa h-forrgi ging ng, this th hiss is is it. iitt. O Ou coll co l eg ll egiia iattee narrative narr arrrati tive ve is is not not mereno mereemere me Ourr collegiate lyy a confl con onfl flict icct between beetwe ttw wee een Ruth Ruth and d Ira. IIra ra.. Th herre’ e’ss no onee barging bargi g in ng g into into nto offi nt offi fice es, holhol h oThere’s ces, leri ing g rowdy; rowdy; there th heree is is no no broad brroa bro oad sweepsw lering ing generalization, gene ge neera rallizatiion on, and and little an litt itt ttlle point poi oint nt in n
casting blame. There are no evil suits, no back-room conspirators and no revolutionaries screaming words of wisdom at the midnight hour. What exists is a moment of great promise and possibility for what we as a university can be and, more so, for what we as students should do to get us there. If this belief seems contradictory to my original claim that we’re all taking ourselves too seriously here and that this is all too much a post-Obama pipe-dream, we hope that it isn’t. Taken together, our circumstances keep with the general excitement and innovation that has characterized us as an institution. Yet, as a whole, none of these developments are even all that unique to our situation here at Brown. What is it, then, that separates us from our peers in this tumultuous period? What is it that keeps us individual? How do we go about crafting a narrative of ourselves in the face of these seemingly sweeping changes? How we do weigh one set of values over another? This is not about factions, nor is it about speaking to a particular interest group seeking their own little share of campus-loot – Brown, as one-community, has persistently come together in times of great duress to define what it is in changing times. How we go about doing this today is a question open for healthy debate, and it is in this spirit that we offer this framework for contextualizing the many questions we face as students and members of the university-community. Brown encourages us all to sing our own funky song, but what song is it that we are each singing?
bc
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
9
T
he thoughts and ideas you will find expressed below are shaped by our unique experiences, conversations, and research into the history and philosophy of our university. The purpose of this paper is to inspire further discussion of the values of Brown University. We do this by trying to expose the current dichotomy between assumed values and articulated values. Given that there is no existing articulation of common values all of Brown’s community members (students, faculty, and administration) are inherently making decisions based on values drawn from individual perceptions of a shared history. We hope that this article will ultimately lead to a broad conversation that help us develop a clearer understanding of both Brown’s values as a community and their role in the decisions we each make daily across the campus. We Decide Who We Are with Every Decision That We Make Brown is poised to cut $90 million from projected spending over the next five years. The process required to accomplish this will require many decisions and it is important that we as a community understand the criteria that guide the tough choices that have been made thus far and will continue to be made in the coming months. Every decision we make either takes us one step closer to, or one step farther away from, our goals as individuals, as a university, and as a community. In a time of crisis those decisions that have to be made will be made by whoever decides to participate in that process. Our university is not its mission statement, nor is it its buildings, its faculty, or its students. What Brown is is the accumulation of nearly 250 years of thousands of daily decisions made by administrators, faculty, students… each and every one of us contributing to the community voice, helping, collectively, to define what Brown is as an institution. Our identity is born from this process: what Brown is now determines what type of faculty, students, or administration Brown will attract, and they in their turn will determine the future of our school. From this perspective it becomes clear that without a
10
Envisioning Values: A Discus at Brown U
by ar
Brown’s Missi
“The mission of Brown University is to serve the comm municating and preserving knowledge and understandi ing students to discharge the offices of life with usefuln usefulne students and teachers in a unified com distinct metric against which to evaluate our daily decisions we could quickly lose sight of our goals. As decisions are rapidly being made now, the need for a metric becomes increasingly urgent. In the past six years we have replaced 100% of undergraduate students, over 40% of faculty, and a multitude of key administrators. New community members have arrived on campus and begun making those thousand daily decisions that define Brown, now and for the future. Preserving distinctive Brown values with this tremendous infusion of new blood into the community necessitates a robust dis-
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
cussion of the values that should guide this community’s decisions. These values should be reflected every time a department chooses between an adjunct and tenure-track faculty to teach core courses for a concentration; to every time a professor chooses between a meeting with a student and preparing a grant; to every time a student chooses between engaging in a thesis or becoming involved in community work. Each of these choices are valid in different contexts, and each reflects essential values.
ssion about Decision-Making University
rthur matuszewski, chaney harrison, and jason becker
ion Statement
munity, the nation, and the world by discovering, coming in a spirit of free inquiry, and educating and preparess and reputation. We do this through a partnership of mmunity known as a university-college.” Stating A Vision – Where Our Values Are Proceeding with the assumption that a clear articulation of values is crucial for coherent and productive decision-making across the campus, we sought to determine what our core values are. We sifted through the anecdotal statements, the personal biases, and our institutional documents to search for a set of values that was both broad enough to encompass the scope of the university and yet specific enough to direct an individual student through their educational process? We began
our process by looking at the mission statement of Brown and those of other universities and colleges. Over time, we found the mission statement was not a useful tool in determining the values of a university. The mission statements of universities offer only broad definitions of the ends to which all of our efforts, cumulatively, are directed. Although Brown’s mission statement is written in language that is unique to Brown, it articulates objectives that are not significantly different from other liberal arts colleges and universities that we might consider peers.
Dartmouth’s mission statement, for example, promises to prepare students “for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.” It sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it? It is difficult to imagine from these statements alone that the products, both in research and in graduates, would differ greatly. But ask any Brown student, or for that matter a Dartmouth student, about the differences between the educational experience at these institutions and you will be hard pressed to find the time to hear them all. So what is that distinguishes Brown from other campuses? As we continued looking across the nation we were able to identify a key element that was present at many institutions, but absent at Brown. That missing element was a vision statement. A vision statement is a detailed description of how exactly our institution should proceed in fulfilling our mission. One way to visualize the relationship between mission and vision is picturing the mission as destination and the vision as a unique path by which you arrive there with the core values marking the edge of the path. To bring this back to Brown, you can imagine there might be any number of ways to prepare a student to “discharge the offices of life” upon graduation. In fact you could transplant our mission statement to a hundred different universities and probably end up with a hundred versions of a university-college, all with students of “usefulness and reputation” and faculty discovering and preserving knowledge, but completely absent the structures we consider an essential part of our institutional identity: the Open Curriculum, UTRAs, GISPs/ISPs, and Independent Concentrations. Brown is not Dartmouth. Nor are we Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. We are Brown University. What we look like in five, or ten, or twenty years may be completely different, but we must make sure it is still Boldly — and uniquely — Brunonian.
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
11
Assessment of the University ation of knowledge. And though the inexorably shaping higher education We wouldn’t be able to address the principles laid out in the PAE tell us, today. How will we respond to invision and values at Brown, especially vaguely, what a Brown education is, creasing standards of accountability, regarding decision making, without but they do not illuminate how we get from accrediting agencies, governreferring to the Plan for Academic there -- the process, of education and ment, and society at large? How will Enrichment (PAE). The PAE began research, that makes Brown unique. we respond to increasing entanglein 2004 under President Ruth ment with outside institutions Simmons and describes it- Though the principles laid out in the for funding? What is the role of self as “an ambitious program Athletics and other co-curricuof academic enrichment that PAE tell us, vaguely, what a Brown lars in the university-college? builds on its strengths and esWhat is Brown’s responsibility tablishes new benchmarks of education is, they do not illuminate to the local and global commuexcellence in research, educanity? What role do we play in tion, and public leadership.” how we get there -- the process, of the community of higher eduOver the last five years the PAE cation? has guided our progress. It education and research, that makes In order for statements of has helped us achieve unprecvalues to be used to structure Brown unique. edented levels of capital funds, the decision making process shaped the physical presence they must provide guidance of our campus, and led to the developBy simply applying them to a that is exclusive as well as inclument of new administrative positions number of questions that have been sive. When the allocation of limited and programs. debated across the campus, we quickly resources demands that we choose Since its inception the Plan has realize that these ends-oriented prin- between two things that both supbeen guided by six ‘principles’ that ciples fall short of providing a basis port our mission, they must be clear seek to be guideposts for changes laid upon which to make decisions. What enough to help us make those hard out in the plan, definitions of what guidance do these ‘principles’ provide choices coherently and justifiably. makes Brown distinct (see [location]). for deciding whether or not to offer We have come to the understandThese principles are sweeping and in- tenure at the Watson Institute? How ing that a plan can help you follow a clusive — they make it very easy to say do they help us resolve the issue of vision statement, but it cannot supthat something is part of Brown, but prerequisites and Banner, or wheth- plant one. A plan is, by nature, they provide little assistance in deter- er ROTC should return to campus? dependent on imple-bc mentation. mining what is not. How much funding should be given It is useful only so long as the What makes Brown distinct from to UTRAs versus other student pro- current situation matches up what its its peers and competitors is not its grams? What is the appropriate rela- creators took into account. When the products -- all produce bright, en- tionship between the graduate school, PAE was put into place there were gaged, accomplished young minds the medical school, and the college, certain, fundament financial assumpand world class research -- but the physically and financially? tions that are simply no longer true. process through which students and Nor do these principles help Where the PAE made it clear how we faculty engage in learning and the cre- us respond to the questions that are should go forward ideally, it does not
12
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
help us distinguish what should now be mons lauded Brown’s ability to “punch ticulate the PAE’s basic principles, let put off, or worse, cut entirely. above its weight” in comparison with alone formulate any coherent standard We are not criticizing the PAE’s better-resourced peers. Cynics could that would allow for a concrete evalugoals or priorities; in fact we deeply ap- argue that this due in large part to the ation of its recommendations. Though preciate its clarity. We have overheard success of the myth of Brown’s distinc- all of the Task Force’s recommendaa number of administrators and cor- tive values as a recruiting tool to attract tions are unobjectionable on their own, poration members remark about how bright, motivated undergraduates and and most are very promising ideas, it fortunate we are to have the PAE, and graduate students; supporters could is unclear which most strongly support we could not agree more. We believe argue that those same values, and the Brown’s distinctive pedagogy. the entire campus is aware how far it structures that support them, genuWithout a clear vision statehas taken us in the last five ment, Brown risks suffering years as a community and as from “me-tooism” – the colloWithout a clear vision statement, an institution. quial fear of becoming ‘Harvard By drawing a distincBrown risks “me-tooism” – the collo- Lite’ becomes a much more tion between a vision statelikely reality. In this economic ment and the Plan, we hope quial fear of becoming ‘Harvard Lite’ climate, it also risks weakenonly to foster awareness ing core functions of Brown that there is more that can becomes a much more likely reality. because it is unable to clearly be done. Brown does an exprioritize those structures that ceptional job of inviting stakeholders inely allow those students, and their make us unique and therefore deserve to the tables where decisions are made. faculty mentors, to achieve their full our limited resources. The $90 million The University Resources Committee, potential. must be cut in a coherent way designed for example, which recommends a budCynics and supporters, though, to strengthen Brown’s core functions get to the President, includes students, would both agree that in order to con- rather than attenuate everything it faculty, and staff. While our process is tinue our success we need to make does. In order to accomplish this, we a powerful model for community en- choices and prioritize our resources need a university-wide values stategagement, the basis on which our di- to strengthen what is best at Brown, ment that is not inclusive of all the universe body of stakeholders makes de- as distinguished from the strengths versities’ activities and that explicitly cisions is no more transparent than at shared by all our peer institutions. prioritizes those values it does include. other universities. What is needed to Brown is not the right school for everyIt is important to note that the purmake our process truly progressive is one and our structures and opportuni- pose of the work is not to call anyone an agreed-upon set of values that are ties are suited to self-driven students. out as a failure, or to attack a person or able to guide our decisions at all levels. We can do best by our students, and group through a decision or situation For example, if we value our compo- attract those students who are best for that we may have used as an example. sition as a university-college, we must us, by being honest and precise about We hope this essay will inspire othensure that there is a clear, shared defi- our distinctive values. Unfortunately, ers in this community to feel similarly nition of what a university-college is to the six points currently articulated in and that by bringing this discussion us today. We must also articulate what our guiding document — the Plan for to the entire university community we facets of this structure are significant Academic Enrichment — do not help can elevate it beyond the small group enough that they should influence our us do this. We must recognize that of students and faculty that have been decision-making process and which they are insufficient for our current meeting on Friday afternoons in a are merely incidental. Once we estab- needs. Because Brown has yet to clear- corner room in Hunter Lab. It is only lish this understanding, we can begin ly articulate its values, we have faculty, through full community participation to incorporate it into how we make de- students, and administrators making that we successfully articulate our valcisions across campus, whether in the independent decisions based on what ues. We would like to invite all of you arrangement and use of physical space, they individually believe those values to take part in continuing and furtherthe hiring and tenure process of facul- to be, and our resources are not being ing this conversation – in dorm rooms, ty, or the admission standards for the tightly concentrated on our strengths. in classrooms, and on the green. Write, next generation of undergraduates. We Ira Magaziner recognized the im- talk, twitter. Please write letters. Please should apply this same process to other portance of precisely defining shared talk to your friends and professors and structures that we consider essential to values forty years ago when he quit the peers. Let’s come together and creeducational process. In this way we can Stultz Committee (which was review- ate this resource which will be so vital quickly, confidently, and consistently ing the curriculum at Brown) because as we shape Brown over the coming distill those values which are truly uni- they declined to start their work with months and years. versal to Brown. a discussion of philosophies and valNow, more than ever, we need to go ues. More recently, the Task Force for out and discover exactly what we mean Parting Thoughts Undergraduate Education produced by “Boldly Brown.” bc In a recent meeting, President Sim- a document that failed to even re-ar-
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
13
I
Affording Free Speech
t all started with a movie. It aired quietly in a few theaters, and then went quickly to DVD. Yet when the producers tried to air the film and advertisements for it on cable television, the Federal Election Commission banned them from the airwaves. The film in question, “Hillary: The Movie,” may not have made much box office money but a year later it has sparked a constitutional controversy that stands at the center of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and threatens to open the door to a nightmarish flood of corporate influence over elections.
The Case What distinguishes “Hillary: The Movie” from your run-of-the-mill political biopic? One important factor is timing. The film was being promoted during her presidential campaign, just before the primaries. Another important consideration is the language of the advertisement or communication. A quick viewing of the film’s trailer shows a collection of anti-Hillary tirades from sources such as Ann Coulter who vilify then-Senator Clinton’s personality, without focusing on a single substantive policy issue. As Justice Stephen Breyer wryly noted, “I saw this film, and it is not a musical comedy.” These details are important—television communications that refer directly to a candidate by name, are funded directly by a corporate entity, and are the “functional equivalent” of an encouragement to vote for or against a candidate during the 60 days before an election are defined as electioneering communications by law. And they are illegal. This prohibition falls under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), the legislative baby of Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, which was a monumental step forward against corruption. Section 203 prohibits corporations from directly funding political advertisements that meet the above criteria.
14
by jessica wang This provision covers not only the actions of large corporations like Exxon Mobil, but also includes incorporated nonprofit organizations and labor unions. In 2008, a three-judge panel upheld the FEC’s decision to ban “Hillary: The Movie,” as it violated bans on “election-
eering communications” under current campaign finance law. The Supreme Court heard the case in March but in a rather unusual step, ordered a rehearing this September and expanded their focus to encompass not only the role of corporations’ in political campaigns, but also the question of how far the Constitution will protect them. Free Speech for Millionaires Citizens United, the group that produced the film, is framing their case against the FEC as a fight to rectify the grave injuries that campaign finance
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
regulation has supposedly inflicted upon the First Amendment rights of corporations. Along with the litany of BCRA disclosure and disclaimer requirements that they object to, Citizens United is challenging Section 203 and a century’s worth of legal precedent on the grounds that regulating the speech and spending of corporations is unconstitutional. The basis for this logic lies partly in the 1974 decision for Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Court determined that money is equivalent to free speech. Thus, the argument
goes that FEC regulation of corporate spending in campaigns is tantamount to a gag order. Upon close examination, though, this line of reasoning is not very credible. Corporations already have undue influence in the electoral process. As it is, corporations may legally form Political Action Committees to raise campaign money. PACs may directly contribute to campaigns, or they can use independent expenditures to create ads that are officially unaffiliated with the campaigns in question. The over-
whelming power of PACs was evident in the 2008 Oregon Senate race, in which a record $27 million was spent by both candidates. 70 percent came from independent expenditures. At such a high volume of spending, it becomes apparent that corporate expenditures suppress the weight of the free, political speech individuals. Destroying the regulation on corporate expenditures in campaigns would prove dangerous. Consider another example. Exxon has a PAC that bundles donations for political candidates from its employees and shareholders. In 2008, the Exxon PAC raised $1 million. Now imagine that BCRA was struck down, and that Exxon’s CEO could write checks to politicians directly from the company treasury. Exxon makes $85 billion a year. If only one percent of that money (which comes to $850 million) was spent on campaigns, it would be five times the amount raised by all the corporate PACs in America that year ($150 million). A donation from a corporation dwarfs by far the impact than the bundling of donations by the individuals that constitute it. If the Court were to rule in favor of unrestricted corporate expenditures, it would unleash millions of dollars that would drown out the voices of individuals. Moreover, a century of legal precedent has justified the regulation of corporate speech. Reaching from the Tillman Act of 1907, which first banned direct corporate campaign donations, to the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, there is a history of protecting the political process and the rights of individuals by regulating the expression of corporations. In Austin, the Supreme Court found that the government has a “compelling interest” to counteract the “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Finally, the current regulation of corporate expenditures does not prevent individual employees or shareholders from donating to campaigns and voicing their political preferences through those donations. The free speech rights
of individuals are in no way violated under current law, nor are their freedom of assembly and collective free speech rights abridged. The only plausible First Amendment objection that can be made is to claim that corporations have inalienable free speech rights extending beyond those of their creators and members. This logic boils down to a claim that corporations have the same rights as people. Ok I think this is were I stopped – ish last time. Corporations as Persons The legal argument for equating corporations to persons is shaky, at best. The earliest recognition of corporate personhood comes from an 1886 case,
If the Court were to rule in favor of unrestricted corporate expenditures, it would unleash millions of dollars that would drown out the voices of individuals. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In a comment that was meant to be off the record, Chief Justice Morrison Waite was quoted saying that the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations. From that offhand comment sprang forth an unfortunate tradition of using the 14th Amendment as a shield for corporations’ rights. Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1938 that “Less than one-half of 1 percent invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.” This may be quite shocking (or not, depending on how cynical you are), but it does illustrate the madness and illegitimacy of corporate personhood. Corporations are not natural entities. Rather, they are created by the state. In an 1819 case, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible. It possesses only those prop-
erties with the charter of its creation confers upon it.” Subsequent Supreme Court justices including conservatives Byron White and William Rehnquist have agreed that despite the fact that corporations are endowed with property rights and “perpetual life,” they have no right to use their economic power as political speech. The legal benefits that corporations have, they argued, were solely meant for economic purposes. In an age when multinational corporations have acquired an alarming amount of control over everyday life and politics, these principles are more important than ever. Stare Decisis or Face a Crisis When discussing this case, we must not conflate the issues at stake with mere partisan politics. “Hillary: The Movie” itself certainly elicits the sympathy of conservatives and rankles liberals still nursing their burns from the Swift Boat Veterans campaign. Concerned citizens of all political stripes should be watching the outcome of this case urgently, as it has the potential to loosen the already slack grip we as individuals hold on the political process. Although an imperfect law, BCRA was named the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for a reason—it was created by and for both Republicans and Democrats. And when the veneer of misguided First Amendment hysteria is stripped from the Citizens United case, it is essentially a bid to extend the full rights of personhood to corporations. This should concern Americans from every position on the political spectrum. Five justices on the Court— Justices Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts—have already showed signs of an imminent ruling in favor of Citizens United. If the Court breaks with precedent and eliminates regulation on corporate expression and spending, our democracy will be left vulnerable to the unchecked powers of large corporations. Liberals who are concerned with inequality of political speech and conservatives who worry about overreaching judicial activism should all agree that a more perfect union rests on protecting the rights of actual people rather than corporations. bc
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
15
P
North Korea: Contents under pressure
ieter Fleury’s 2004 documentary North Korea: A Day in the Life is, strangely, both serene and chilling. In the first moments of the film, a Korean mother walks her daughter to school. The tiny child, skipping and jovial, asks her mother for a sing-along. The mother obliges. Contentedly, they chirp: “The pathetic Americans kneel on the ground/They beg for mercy.”
by anthony badami therland. To answer the question previously stated then, the termites have eaten deeply.
What a lovely scene. Upon its conclusion, I could not help but let a rueful chuckle exit my mouth. Something about this mother-daughter duo left me a bit sorrowful and empty. I felt as if I was watching two automata, helpless and lifeless, regurgitating their predetermined, preprogrammed dogma. The question one wants to ask: how far have the termites eaten? It seems unlikely that the necrocracy currently controlling the northern part of the Korean peninsula will relinquish power anytime soon, a prospect that worries both their neighbors to the south and their ever-willing sponsors to the west. Shockingly, there are a fair amount of famine refugees flooding into China who still maintain loyalty to the Great Leader. In fact, many of these displaced persons, after making sufficient money abroad, return to their fa-
16
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
But Kim Jong-il’s brazen disregard for his starving population is only one among many worries. IAEA Director General Mohamed El-Baradei has confirmed an April report that North Korea is “a fully fledged nuclear power with the capacity to wipe out entire cities in Japan and South Korea.” It conducted a nuclear test in October of 2006 and again in May of this year, most likely near Kilju, with an atomic bomb equal to or greater in power than those dropped on Japan during WWII. This fact is particularly alarming considering the diplomatic context in which these nuclear tests take place. The US has refused bilateral talks with North Korea, saying that the only feasible negotiating arrangement would include the original six-party partners. Kim refused, stating that the DPRK would not receive equal treatment in such an arrangement, thus creating a diplomatic deadlock. The Pyongyang regime’s recalcitrance works against its selfinterest and survival. But while Washington patters about the negotiating table, dark forces steal forward slowly. A September article in the Economist paints an ominous picture: “Centrifuge machines are hard to operate. North Korea will have
needed help in getting them up and running. North Korea and Iran are already known to cooperate intensively in developing nuclear-capable missiles. So what is to stop them helping each other with their nuclear programmes?” Slowly, policy analysts here and abroad are starting to realize the very real possibility of North Korean-Iranian nuclear collusion. A June article in the Atlantic drives the point home. Robert Kaplan remarks that Bush’s indictment of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil ended in “nothing by its failure to engage,” and may have marginalized these powers into conspiracy. Need I connect the dots? Abdul Qadeer Khan’s shady dealings with both Iran and Libya should make the situation clearer. Recent arrests of his associates in Switzerland reveal digital versions of a
then, that China would continue to bolster this slave state, even if the face of ardent admonition from the United Nations. What move can the Great Leader make? His only course of action would be to goad America into bilateral talks in such a way that he can “leverage Washington against Beijing.”(5) Sadly, the DPRK’s nuclear tests and weapons detonations are the only modicum of bargaining power that remains to this despotic malfeasant. However, Obama should keep in mind that forceful sanctions are not a constructive course of action. Internal collapse of North Korea could put hazardous fissile materials into the hands of terrorists and rogue states eager and willing to pay hard cash for weapons of mass destruction (Iran already has its filthy hands dipped into this lurid pot). Why give Kim Jong-il any
nuclear, another problem impeding China’s long-term objectives. As such, China refuses to enact economic sanctions against Kim. The refugee crisis is a concern, but the nuclear issue also distracts Western powers from Beijing’s interests in Taiwan. Couple this with China’s warm treatment of Somalian warlords, and the dubious China’s dubious position on the world stage becomes clearer. we begin to see the dubious newpower we’re dealing with. picture becomes clear. In the end, I would postulate that North Korea wants little more than assistance and security. The Great Leader is clearly sick. His end of September efforts to draft a new DPRK constitution making himself the Supreme Leader (a title previously held by his late father) should communicate one thing: power within the il-Sung
by reed frye
“North Korea and Iran are already known to co-operate intensively in developing nuclear-capable missiles. So what is to stop them helping each other with their nuclear programmes?” more sophisticated warhead than that given to Libya. His assistance in nuclear-izing Iran in the 1980s most likely had Pakistani support, and his intention to counteract Israel’s power is obvious. Furthermore, we now know that Kim was responsible for a covert nuclear reactor built in Syria, created with the same plutonium used for the 2006 bomb, which was destroyed in during a 2007 Israeli air raid. Amid this turmoil, the US must walk a tenuous political line with China and Russia. Both countries use North Korea as a bulwark between themselves and the burgeoning democratic movement of South Korea. As is well known, the collapse of the Kim regime would mean millions of North Korean refugees surging into eastern China. It comes as no surprise,
more ammunition to propagandize to his people? North Korean schoolchildren are already mouthing along to the country head’s vociferous charge to annihilate America, an Orwellian parallel I need not draw. On the other end of the spectrum, reunification of the Korean Peninsula could create a formidable adversary to China’s geopolitical dominance in the region. The peninsula maintains“all maritime traffic in northeastern China” and, most importantly, “traps in its armpit the Bohai Sea, home to China’s largest offshore oil reserve.” Let us not forget also the turbulent history between occupier and occupied – jingoism on both sides could erupt into all-out regional warfare. A nuclear-armed North Korea might also drive Japan to go
family is waning. The military continues to demand increasingly aggressive expansion and weapons tests every day. Kim has responded by trying to position his sons into seats of power to set the stage for an eventual handover. All in all, the reigns of control are starting to shift. ¬ Not to be neglected, the malnourished and pauperized population of North Korea will have to be cared for. The decades of indoctrination and stupefaction endured at the hands of this asinine leader must be reversed. To do this, the US must act with incremental caution, strategic sanctions, and optimism. Fighting the gravity of the situation will only drive us, and the DPRK, deeper into this diplomatic puzzle. Indeed, handle with care – , contents are under serious pressure.
bc
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
17
A Prescription for Real Change by alicia ambers
S
ince the earliest stages of his presidential run, Barack Obama focused on healthcare reform. Prior to the recession in 2007, the US Census Bureau estimated $47 million Americans lacked health insurance. In the year and a half since, the economy has shed over 7 million jobs and 14 states now maintain double-digit unemployment rates. Today healthcare costs continue to skyrocket and consumers constantly face the threat of losing coverage due to preexisting conditions or chronic illnesses. Yet, over the past seven months, mistakes by the Obama Administration have mired the policy process. Until President Obama effectively reasserts himself as the most powerful actor in this debate, reform efforts will continue to stagnate.
cies to cover the cost of reform. Not surprisingly, calamity ensued. Charles Rangle (D-NY), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a tax increase on Americans making over $250,000, but the fiscally conservative “blue dog” Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee pressured chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) to cut costs instead. The internal congressional strife continued news cycle after news cycle, shifting the debate away from the main issues of the reform package, such as increased industry regulation and baseline requirements for coverage. If the President had proposed specific alternative means of funding prior to congressional negotiations, he could have lobbied each committee without encroaching on their right to shape the legislation. However, without an initial policy of his own, Obama unintentionally removed himself from the decision
ing a strong offense. Instead, the administration combated conservative criticisms that a tax would harm small businesses and progressives arguments that wealthier Americans should chip in and pay for a better healthcare system. Plagued with near universal disquiet and no meaningful data to examine the reforms impact, the Obama administration shrank from the debate. Message lost and spotlight stolen, Obama just continued to spout the same three reform goals to handpicked audiences in Indiana and Ohio.
Media Mishaps History has shown us that all major reforms come with a fair share of partisan wrangling and special interest lobbying to distract from actual policy concerns. For a President to achieve Details, Details, Details success he must win the message war, Throughout the reform process, he must cut through the Washington President Obama has utilized a goalecho chamber reach the American oriented strategy to sell his people. Despite what you may see healthcare proposals. Obama on televisions, America is not the and his surrogates have spent The Obama Administration could stereotypical bible thumbing gun owner or the leftie, hybrid driving, innumerable town hall meetings and televised interviews asserteco-tourist. America is the single have taken lessons from Clinton ing the proposed reform would mother with a five year old with increase choice, expand coverasthma, the senior Medicare who media failures, but messages of age, and lower costs.. However, has been seeing the same doctor the administration’s talking for 10 years, and the family of four fear and anger are still drownpoints omitted the crucial deconcerned about their rise in insurtails of how to pay for the plan. ance premiums in a tough economy. ing out Obama’s message. The This strategy backfired when When President Clinton atCongressional Budget Office tempted a large-scale reform of the level of misinformation about (CBO) released estimates, scorhealthcare in the early 90’s a masing the plan at over $1 trillion Obama’s proposals is staggering. sive media war ensued. Targeted dollars. Yet, the bipartisan attacks by conservative groups CBO could not determine the propelled the Clinton reform efbills real impact because major aspects making process. Any open support fort toward failure. The most damning of the plan did not exist. All Obama for one committee’s policy over an- blow came with “Harry and Louise.” got was an unworkable price tag. other’s would alienate members of Set “sometime in the future,” the ad The Congressional Committees in Congress vital to the reform’s survival. depicts a middle class couple discussThe absence of legislative specifics ing the supposed negative results of the charge of the bill were then saddled with finding revenue-generating poli- also prevented Obama from mount- Clinton plan and their lack of choice
18
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
under government run healthcare. The country identified with the characters in the ad more than with the dense arguments of politicians, and as public fear grew, support evaporated. The Obama Administration should have taken lessons from Clinton media failures. However, fear and anger are still drowning out Obama’s message for reform. The level of misinfor-
mation about the impact of Obama’s proposals is staggering. Instead of a debate and productive compromise on issues, healthcare reform has devolved into fear-mongering and finger-pointing. Town hall meetings stacked with vocal mobs ready to harass Congressmen for our YouTube viewing pleasure only prevent the average concerned voter from learning critical informa-
tion. Editorials from familiar Republicans – most notably Sarah Palin – accusing the Obama plan of creating “death panels” provide little real insight on healthcare, but scare seniors into confusion. President Obama has repeatedly failed to change the story because he never says anything new. Obama must learn a lesson from Clinton’s failure and shift the media game to policy. Instead of running another ad demonizing the evil profit-seeking insurance companies, Democrats should flood the airwaves in with issue ads that explain individual aspects of the plan. President Obama finally attempted this strategy in his September 9th address before a joint session of Congress. He pointed out the common fallacies poisoning the debate then confronted the changes in plain non-legislative English. By standing above the fray, the President can present himself as a legitimate source of reliable information, and paint his opponents as Washington partisans trying to scare the nation out of reform at any cost. Congressional Influence Before the full House and Senate can vote on the two bills, the Democratic leadership must combine the bills reported by each committee. This means lots of back room meetings and political bartering. The President must play a heavy role in the creation of the final bills, and gear himself up for the massive floor fight that will decide the fate of healthcare reform. The challenge lies in convincing moderate Democrats of the bill’s financial responsibility, liberals that the plan will lead to universal coverage, and conservatives that reform will not phase out insurance companies and create an entirely government-run system. President Obama cannot achieve this task through well-placed speeches and popular support; he must take a personal hands-on lobbying approach. The debate over the “public option,” a government-run, profit-seeking, alternative to private insurance companies, will remain the most hotly contested issue. President Obama advocated for the public option during
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
19
his campaign, and expressed support for the proposal throughout the reform process. Yet, Obama’s insistence on a public option wavered with the politi-
55 House Seats. New members reside in mostly moderate districts turned blue by marginal change rather than polarizing policies. President Obama
Obama is to achieve passage of meaningful and lasting reform he must refocus the national spotlight on the real problems Americans face in our
By openly advocating the specifics aspects of the proposals funding and implementation he can combat the vicious inaccuracies frightening Americans out of change. cal tide, when negotiations stalled he attempt to grease the skids with flexibility from the White House. However, now is the time for President Obama to stand firm and establish a presence in the negotiations. With the positive report from the Senate Finance committee, more rank and file Democrats have the political cover to support the bill. Obama is a popular president and his number are back on the rise, the more certain a completed bill appears the easier it will be for the President to wrangle support. Since 2006, Democrats have picked up 11 Senate seats and
20
created one of the most effective organizing and fundraising operations in history, and White House support is critical in midterm elections. If reform continues to move, members will want to jump on the bandwagon and curry favor with the administration. President Obama should capitalize on Congress’s collective fear of reelection. At this point in the game, electoral carrots and sticks will capture more votes than the merits of any argument. The debate over healthcare reform will continue to rage in the coming weeks and months. If President
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
healthcare system. By openly advocating the specific aspects of the proposal’s funding and implementation he can combat the vicious inaccuracies frightening Americans away from change. Despite past missteps the most crucial phase of reform awaits the President. Bill Clinton failed to work effectively with Congress to pass any form of reform. The result was a staled domestic agenda and the disappearance of healthcare from the political sphere for almost two decades. For the Barack Obama, the pressure is on.bc
The Least Dangerous Branch by tyler rosenbaum
L
ast November, President Obama was elected at the same time large Democratic majorities swept the House and Senate. Many assume, therefore, that the country will begin moving in a generally leftward direction. But will this actually be the case? Looking at American politics through the prism of the 2008 landslide ignores one very important player in American politics: the courts. For while the elective branches have undoubtedly become more liberal, Republican presidents have been so successful in packing the courts with conservatives that only one federal appellate court (the Ninth Circuit) has a majority of Democratic appointees. Many conservatives like to pretend that the courts do not make law, and that they essentially act mechanically to give force to laws, all of which have clear, unmistakable meanings. This is, of course, completely ridiculous. The fundamental structure underlying American law is the English common law system. The common law itself is merely an accretion of judge-made law. Moreover, constitutions and laws rarely have any clearly defined “meaning” that can be applied to all situations without any form of interpretation. For example, what does “equal protection” mean? What about “due process,” “speech,” “unreasonable,” or “seizure”? It is the courts’ responsibility to
tell us what these words and phrases mean, and how those meanings apply to real situations. Occasionally, in giving life to these constitutional provisions, the courts have to overturn an action of one of the political branches. And while this might seem undemocratic, would it not be even more contrary to our national ideals for the courts to ignore the Constitution’s guarantees
and render its language meaningless? The founding fathers did not spend a lot of time thinking about the courts. Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the national judiciary, is far shorter than the parts providing for Congress and the Presidency. Alexander Hamilton thought the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch. And it’s not hard to see why a part of the government that has no ability to tax, to spend money, or to raise an army or police force would not attract many of the founding generation’s fears. Not only that, but the fact that the courts deliberate in secrecy, shun the press, and render their opinions in dense and decidedly unsexy legalese makes it difficult for the average citizen to get too worked up about their activities. A recent C-SPAN poll found that only 49 percent of Americans could name any case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps unsurprisingly, of those who could name one, 84 percent offered Roe v. Wade. Again, it’s no surprise that the other popularly known opinions are primarily high profile cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda v. Arizona. These and other pillars of the Warren Court are frequently criticized by conservatives as examples of “judicial activism” and ridiculed. Yet despite much propaganda to the contrary, liberals by no means
have a monopoly on activism – that requirement a person had to meet litigation has begun and the plainis, overturning precedent and in- in order to have access to the courts tiff can compel production of some terpreting the laws in a way that to sue was that there had to be some of the necessary evidence from the comports with one’s political phi- source of law granting the right to defendants. losophy. go to court – be it a constitutional, This is much more than an idle Perhaps the best examor academic concern. Since ple of conservative “activthe decision was handed ism” in this regard (other For the last 35 years, beginning with down in May, more than than the compulsive cru1,500 district court cases sade against Warren Court President Nixon’s appointees, conser- and 100 appellate cases precedent) is conservatives’ have already been thrown perennial attempts to slam vative jurists have continually worked out based solely on Iqbal. the courtroom door closed While these and other in potential litigants’ faces. to erode plaintiffs’ rights to bring drastic alterations in the leFor the last 35 years, gal landscape may not have beginning with President cases to court. attracted as many headNixon’s appointees, conlines as their Warren Court servative jurists have continually statutory, or common law provi- counterparts, there can be no doubt worked to erode plaintiffs’ rights to sion. that they are just as wide-reaching, bring cases to court. Of course, you Nowadays, thanks to originalist and just as “activist.” The primary won’t find many marches on Wash- Supreme Court justices, even when difference between these two of ington to call for a reform of federal Congress explicitly gives the right types of decisions is that while the standing jurisprudence. But that to sue for governmental violations progressive decisions of the fifties, makes this recent trend all the more of certain laws (such as the Endan- sixties, and seventies worked to disquieting. When the erosion of gered Species Act), the courtroom breathe life into the Constitution’s rights is quiet and below the radar, doors are still shut to all except the guarantees, current conservative it is much less likely to be undone. most clearly affected individuals. rulings act to actively disenfranWhat’s worse, the right to bring Additionally, the conservative chise citizens and to scale back a suit in court is arguably the most Justices, in their recent Ashcroft those guarantees. important of all rights – if the gov- v. Iqbal case drastically altered the And so, although the nation deciernment violates your rights, and proof that would-be plaintiffs need sively voted for change last year, the you cannot take it to court to vin- to provide just in order to get their political and legal processes in this dicate them, the rights aren’t worth foot in the door. country will be heavily influenced the paper they’re written on. The problem with this, of course, by the conservative jurists that From the time of the founders is that in many cases, much of this will dominate the least dangerous until somewhat recently, the only proof can only be obtained after the branch for the foreseeable future.
bc
22
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
Endnotes “A Cross of Knowledge: Mayor Cicilline’s Populism”, Reed Frye 1 “Economic and Social Trends Affecting Rhode Island in 2006,” William Collins, Bureau of Govern ment Research & Services, Rhode Island College, January 2006 2 “Presentation for Mayor Cicilline Advisory Team,” The Providence Plan, November 2002 (Updated 9/25/2009) 3 “Providence Knowledge Economy: Brochure and Workforce Business Plan” 4 “Providence Tomorrow: The Interim Comprehensive Plan,” Chapter 5 “Business and Jobs” 5 The Search for Order: 1877-1920, Robert Wiebe 6 http://www.dpm.provplan.org, The Distressed Property manager “North Korea: Contents Under Pressure”, Anthony Badami 1 Kim Hong-min, “I’m not brave. I’m only pretending to be brave in coming here.” Outsider, no. 15, September 2003 2 “North Korea is fully fledged nuclear power, experts agree”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ world/asia/article6155956.ece 3 “Iran, North Korea and the bomb: Spinning dark new tales”. (http://www.economist.com/world/inter national/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14428655) 4 “Iran, Iraq, North Korea, What Now?”. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906u/axis-of-evil 5 “North Korea, the Next Iraq?”. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905u/nuclear-test-kaplan “A Prescription for Real Change”, Alicia Ambers 1 www.census.gov 2 http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm - Bureau of Labor Statistics 3 The Boston Globe, June 16, 2009 Tuesday, “Health bill would cost US $1 trillion, says budget office” 4 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090902341.html “The Least Dangerous Branch”, Tyler Rosenbaum 1 http://supremecourt.c-span.org/assets/pdf/SC_SeptemberPollin-depthAgendaRe sults%28092209%29.pdf 2 http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202433931370
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009
23
bc
24
contemporary • Sep/Oct 2009